# Al-Awlaki Killed **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 30, 2011, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158 "2011-09-30T14:51:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/201 "2011-10-01T00:54:08Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Are you saying that the US government has the right to execute foreign nationals on US soil without giving those arrested jury trials and all the rights granted to American citizens. Actually, up until this post, you’ve been saying civilian trials. Yes, of course the U.S. has _that_ right, as does any nation under those circumstances. The German saboteurs had military trials, and and the right of appeals through the military command, and right up to requesting clemency of the President. Your trick question completely ignores that we were at war with Germany, a sovereign nation, and that the convicted were citizens of that nation, and were dispatched by that nation, and the trials, convictions, and executions were completely legal by all the laws of war. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/202 "2011-10-01T00:56:42Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Dude was on the battlefield fighting against us, he lost, we won. That’s war. Absolutely, if by “on the battlefield” you mean “on Earth”, and by “fighting against us” you mean “eating breakfast”. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/203 "2011-10-01T00:57:39Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > If it’s on the battlefield, or in your police station, you’re right. If you’re in Yemen, not so much. Let’s get to the heart of it. Do you believe the you, **Hamlet** get to decide where our battlefields are? Last I checked the constitution you are so in love with, it looked like Article II said the President was Commander in Chief. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/204 "2011-10-01T00:58:41Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Absolutely, if by “on the battlefield” you mean “on Earth”, and by “fighting against us” you mean “eating breakfast”. If you understood anything about war you would surely know that fighting takes more forms than pulling a trigger. Would you seriously fault the Germans if they had some dude assassinate Patton or Eisenhower while eating breakfast? I sure as hell wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/205 "2011-10-01T01:03:31Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Not really though I do appreciate your attempts to do so. > > You do ignore that members of the Wehrmact who’d been born in the US weren’t entitled to a host of protections their compatriots weren’t. I’d try and address it if it made any sense. > [@Ibn Warraq](#): > > You also have failed to answer whether or not you think that Obama broke the law by killing Bin Laden and if he should be prosecuted for murder or if the President has the authority to designate anyone on the planet as an “enemy combatant” and kill them with impunity so long as they aren’t American citizens. No Obama didn’t break the law killing Bin Laden. Bin Laden isn’t a US citizen. > [@Ibn Warraq](#): > > Perhaps you can be nonchalant about this. I suspect you’re a white middle class American who has no fears of governmental persecution. I really think you’re confused. I’m the guy arguing that the government SHOULDN’T be allowed to kill US citizens without due process. How that makes you think I don’t fear governmental persecution is beyond me. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/206 "2011-10-01T01:07:33Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > Actually, up until this post, you’ve been saying civilian trials. > > Yes, of course the U.S. has _that_ right, as does any nation under those circumstances. The German saboteurs had military trials, and and the right of appeals through the military command, and right up to requesting clemency of the President. > > Your trick question completely ignores that we were at war with Germany, a sovereign nation, and that the convicted were citizens of that nation, and were dispatched by that nation, and the trials, convictions, and executions were completely legal by all the laws of war. Are you under the impression those men were given “jury trials”? They weren’t. They were given military trials and executed. The US military simply declared them saboteurs, aand then gave them military trials and executed them. You seem to feel that foreign nationals who belong to “a criminal organization”(to use your rather loaded term) are entitled to protections than people who are alleged to be citizens of a nation that the US is at war against. Anyway, I trust that Hamlet and Jimmy disagree with your approval of the action and believe that the alleged saboteurs should have been granted civilian/jury trials. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/207 "2011-10-01T01:07:50Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Let’s get to the heart of it. Do you believe the you, **Hamlet** get to decide where our battlefields are? Me? God no. I don’t want one man deciding that the entire world is a battlefield allowing him to kill anyone without oversight. That’s YOUR position. > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Last I checked the constitution you are so in love with, it looked like Article II said the President was Commander in Chief. And being Commander in Chief doesn’t give the President the power to ignore the Constitution. Once again, we went through all this with the illegal detentions. The President said what you said, that he gets to detain US citizens forever without trial, because he’s CinC and he has the AUMF. The Supreme Court didn’t agree then either. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/208 "2011-10-01T01:12:37Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Me? God no. I don’t want one man deciding that the entire world is a battlefield allowing him to kill anyone without oversight. That’s YOUR position. Cool, so who gets to decide where our battlefields are? Do you have any evidence to support the hilarious proposition that the SCOTUS or any other court gets to decide where our military may or may not use military force? Especially after Congress has already authorized it. > [@](#): > > And being Commander in Chief doesn’t give the President the power to ignore the Constitution. Once again, we went through all this with the illegal detentions. The President said what you said, that he gets to detain US citizens forever without trial, because he’s CinC and he has the AUMF. The Supreme Court didn’t agree then either. You keep going back to that constitution, have you actually read it? What does the constitution have to do with the waging of war? It does not place these restrictions upon ordering the military to engage the enemy, and unless you can show court cases to support your position that it does I must conclude you are confused. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/209 "2011-10-01T01:12:54Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > This is a side issue, but basically KSM is a publicity thing. After the SCOTUS decisions we had to give the Gitmo detainees status hearings, and the ones deemed criminals we were supposed to try for crimes. That is where the military tribunal act came from in congress, with KSM they at first wanted to try him in a regular Federal court in order to make a political statement, but that didn’t work out so well. > > Basically, KSM has been treated the way he has because of publicity reasons. It’s not a side issue. Let’s go back to this exchange, where I was asked what would hypothetically happen if OBL had been an American citizen: > [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > If he had been, I’m betting the government would have gone through all the traditional legal steps, such as issuing a warrant for his arrest. They would have done this because establishing probable cause would have been a piece of cake in the case of OBL. The fact that this was not done in the case of Awlaki speaks volumes. > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > That defies the logic test. If they didn’t do that for al-Awlaki who is a U.S. citizen why would they have done it for a hypothetical American-born ObL? Defies the logic test given we don’t have to talk about what actually happened hypothetically. So to summarize, they didn’t give Awlaki due process, so hypothetical American OBL shouldn’t expect due process. Yet you recognize that KSM got due process, even though other detainees did not, for “publicity reasons.” So are American citizens to be subject to political whims and public opinion, or might there be higher principles in operation? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/210 "2011-10-01T01:13:50Z")
That’s super off topic. KSM was about how to handle someone in custody. ObL and al-Awlaki were on the battlefield. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/211 "2011-10-01T01:15:45Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > That’s super off topic. KSM was about how to handle someone in custody. ObL and al-Awlaki were on the battlefield. So the battlefield is the entire world? ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/212 "2011-10-01T01:17:28Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > You keep going back to that constitution, have you actually read it? What does the constitution have to do with the waging of war? It does not place these restrictions upon ordering the military to engage the enemy, and unless you can show court cases to support your position that it does I must conclude you are confused. Wow. Just…wow. I think I’m starting to understand your issue, Martin. You don’t want a government of laws with checks and balances, you want a benevolent dictatorship. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/213 "2011-10-01T01:19:09Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > If it’s on the battlefield, or in your police station, you’re right. If you’re in Yemen, not so much. Yemen [declared war on AQAP](http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/14/us-yemen-idUSTRE60D12620100114) in January in 2010. We are there at their request and, arguably, helping them fight that war. (Even though we could be there at their request to fight our own US v. AQAP war). > [@](#): > > You seem to think that “enemy” (or “fucking enemy”) is a magic word that immediately cancels out the Constitution. As Hamdi, Hamdan, and even Boudemeine have held, that’s simply not true. I don’t think those cases stand for what you think they stand far. They are about due process\* after \*being captured. Hamdi, was labeled an enemy combatant. That means he could have been killed, instead of detained. The case was about the process he was due as a US detainee. The plurality held he was entitled to more judicial overview (due process) than Bush offered US citizens. The dissent, Justice Scalia/Breyers said the only way to detain him, a US citizen, was to suspend the writ of habeas corpus or try him as a criminal. Hamdan, a captured non-citizen, one of the first sentences in the decision is very telling and states: “He concedes that a court-martial constituted in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. §801 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. III), would have authority to try him.” A courts-marital can only be used to try him for war crimes. War crimes can only occur during war/armed conflict. Thus, Hamdan was an enemy combatant. Enemy Combatants can be killed as a measure of first resort (i.e., drones from the sky). The fact he was captured and detained, and thus subject to due process, is not relevant to that fact. His case was about the actual military commissions that tried him and that those commissions did not afford him GC Art. 3 due process. Boumediane is about constitutional habeas corpus petitions for captured combatants/potential combatants. None of those cases apply to killing during wartime. Maybe Hamdi, bin ladens/driver bodyguard gives insight, b/c he was the “core” combatant; it’s how far can you move away from Hamdi and still be considered a combatant (i.e., is a cook for AQ a combatant? yes, an army marches on its stomach - the cook can be killed…ect.). So is Awlaki, who played an operational role in AQAP a combatant? I say yes. Thus he can be killed legally under the laws of war, unless he surrenders first. So, the lesson, kill them, don’t detain them and deal with all that baggage. That’ an observation, not my opinion on how to actually deal with the situation. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/214 "2011-10-01T01:19:13Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Cool, so who gets to decide where our battlefields are? Do you have any evidence to support the hilarious proposition that the SCOTUS or any other court gets to decide where our military may or may not use military force? Especially after Congress has already authorized it. I’ve said this over and over. The Supreme Court has ruled that the President can’t detain indefinitely without judicial oversight, despite the President saying it was a military action done pursuant to the AUMF. Will it sink in this time I say it? > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > You keep going back to that constitution, have you actually read it? What does the constitution have to do with the waging of war? It’s the document that specifically lays out the authorization for the waging of war. This idea that “war”, “enemy”, and “military” are magic words that suddenly allow the President to do as he wishes no matter what the Constitution says is without support. > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > It does not place these restrictions upon ordering the military to engage the enemy, and unless you can show court cases to support your position that it does I must conclude you are confused. I’ll put that hypothetical conclusion the same weight I give all your others. None. If you need me to cite, for the fourth time, the cases that limit the Presidential Power as CinC, even with a AUMF, I fear I’m wasting my time. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/215 "2011-10-01T01:19:45Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > So the battlefield is the entire world? No, do you think the organizations that planned 9/11 cover every square foot of the world? Of course not. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/216 "2011-10-01T01:22:15Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I’ve said this over and over. The Supreme Court has ruled that the President can’t detain indefinitely without judicial oversight, despite the President saying it was a military action done pursuant to the AUMF. Will it sink in this time I say it? And when will your recognize such a ruling has never had anything to do with military action? I keep asking for cites, all you have ever given is cites about how the government can treat people who are under the custody of police or the military, or whether or not the police can shoot someone fleeing from custody or whatever. Nothing to do with war on the battlefield, not a single cite, in this whole thread. > [@](#): > > It’s the document that specifically lays out the authorization for the waging of war. This idea that “war”, “enemy”, and “military” are magic words that suddenly allow the President to do as he wishes no matter what the Constitution says is without support. I’ll put that hypothetical conclusion the same weight I give all your others. None. If you need me to cite, for the fourth time, the cases that limit the Presidential Power as CinC, even with a AUMF, I fear I’m wasting my time. None of the cases you have cited have anything to do with the President’s CnC power as it relates to ordering military action on the battlefield. Guantanamo bay isn’t the battlefield, no one has ever argued that it was. I find it shocking you don’t understand the difference between a military prison and the battlefield. I can assure you the SCOTUS has not ever ruled in any way limiting the President’s ability to order troops to engage the enemy. How many times must I ask you for cites to the contrary, that we both know do not exist in the history of American law? ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/217 "2011-10-01T01:22:23Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > No, do you think the organizations that planned 9/11 cover every square foot of the world? Of course not. Apparently, you think Yemen and Pakistan are battlefields, even though we’re not at war with either of those sovereign nations. And if Awlaki had gone into Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or France, those countries would have become battlefields as well. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/218 "2011-10-01T01:23:29Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Apparently, you think Yemen and Pakistan are battlefields, even though we’re not at war with either of those sovereign nations. And if Awlaki had gone into Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or France, those countries would have become battlefields as well. If you don’t think Yemen and Pakistan are battlefields you are ignorant of what a battlefield is. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/219 "2011-10-01T01:24:35Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > If you don’t think Yemen and Pakistan are battlefields you are ignorant of what a battlefield is. Okay, I’m ignorant of what a battlefield is. Enlighten me. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2011, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/220 "2011-10-01T01:27:12Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > None of those cases apply to killing during wartime. And, again, we’re back to the proposition that somehow killing a man is less an intrusion into his rights than detaining a man. I find that kind of logic to be … well catastrophically silly. If the detainees were on the battlefield, yes they can be killed. But targeted killings of a US citizen without oversight and not on the battlefield, that’s something completely different. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158.md?page=12)